Congratulations are in order for the Minnesota Legislature, which approved a historic same-sex marriage bill last week. Minnesota now joins 11 other states that have legalized same-sex marriage. Delaware and Maryland approved their laws just two weeks ago. Continue Reading

In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.

The term has been used to refer to Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication was that, although the people in question naïvely thought of themselves as an ally of the Soviet Union, they were actually held in contempt and were being cynically used. The use of the term in political discourse has since been extended to other propagandists, especially those who are seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause which they naïvely believe to be a force for good.

I actually prefer Von Mises’ original phrasing, useful innocents. Idiots implies a pejorative that is perhaps not appropriate in all circumstances (especially in its wider use). Nevertheless, its an interesting idea. I like Colbert’s notion of truthiness, but it does not truly capture what the Conservative Entertainment Complex seems to be trying to do — create useful innocents. Lets take this issue of same sex marriage, the CEC has pushed a number of notions that bear examination:

– Marriage is supported by the government because heterosexual parents are best for children. Leaving aside the other obvious flaws in this argument (how does this explain marriages where there is clearly no chance of children, etc.), it turns out that as more study has been made of this issue, the recent studies suggest that lesbian couples produce slightly better adjusted children than heterosexual couples. I assume that people who use the parents argument do not wish to start advocating for government supporting lesbian couples over all others, so this argument (supporting marriage because heterosexuals are better parents) falls apart — so, the people who push it seem to be trying to keep the people they are pushing it on ignorant.

– If we allow homosexual marriage then we will have to allow … (some other clearly unacceptable practice). This one is often used with especially heinous practices that are clearly prevented by other laws (bestiality, etc.). Certainly, some of the arguments used for homosexual marriage *could* be used, for example, to support polygamous marriage, but this leaves aside the idea that we as a nation would have to push to allow such marriage. Not all that long ago the voting age was reduced to the age of 18. The arguments used for this move could have been easily used to push the age to 17 or 16 or … This does not mean we do so or are forced to do so because we pushed the age to 18. Keeping the drinking age at 21 while the age to vote, serve in the military, etc. at 18 does not seem to fit most arguments involving equal treatment. Nevertheless, we keep it so. Our laws are a manifestation of what we believe as a group. The mere idea that an argument for one thing can be used for another does not mean that allowing one automatically allows the other. Again, the people who push this false equivalence seem to hope that people don’t examine the fundamental argument, that they remain ignorant.

– Marriage is based on tradition/history/custom/etc, who are we to change it? Well, marriage has actually shifted quite a bit over time. Marriage for love is a very recent custom. Up until 1967, marriage in the US between people of different races was illegal in most states. Marriage for most of the time to 1600 was largely based on property rights and was generally NOT solemnized in a church. Part of the problem with this argument is that there are two notions of marriage — the secular notion, the government part of the institution and the religious part. In many countries, these are more explicitly separated. The notion of homosexual marriage then pertains to the secular part, which most people tend to agree with in some sense. Again, talk with people using this argument and you realize how ignorant they are of the history they are supposedly referring to.

– Finally, there are the religious arguments across a variety of religions. Leaving aside the idea that we are meant to be a secular nation, not recognizing any religion, there are, in my experience, large holes in these arguments as well. Unfortunately, these arguments require a lot more time to address than I want to spend here, but again, almost always, the people pushing them are not aware of the contradictions.

I think its worth talking about — why does the CEC seem to focus on creating such useful innocents? Deliberately keeping people ignorant seems to be anathema to journalism, yet it seems to be the open purpose of the CEC. Are there ways to fight it??

David Frumm is a writer for the Daily Beast and Newsweek and he coined the term “Conservative Entertainment Complex”. According to RickM, an unnamed group (CEC) of unnamed members has pushed notions that need examination by un referenced studies that refute the notions of the coined term. See where this is “progressing”?

Deliberately keeping people ignorant is the job of the Main Stream Media. Journalism is dead when you have media bragging how they get presidential access because they don’t ask “Gotcha” questions.

“David Frumm, [a speechwriter for George W. Bush and a noted conservative commentator] is a writer for the Daily Beast and Newsweek and he coined the term “Conservative Entertainment Complex”.

Added the stuff in the brackets so that you note that it is conservatives who are noting the influence of the Ignorance Peddlers.

Lets see, what else:

“A unnamed group (CEC) of unnamed members has pushed notions that need examination by un referenced studies that refute the notions of the coined term.”

Hmmm, unnamed?? CEC is giving them a name. America’s version of Pravda?? Does that work any better for you?

Unreferenced studies? I am happy to provide multiple links (if you look through many of the past threads I have commented on I have put in the references, happy to do them again if you are unable to do the basic search).

Refute the notions of the coined term?? Not in any sense. The term was coined to label one particular group to start with (to be honest, I think fellow traveller was a better name for the term). I honestly think that you really hit on something. A significant problem this country is developing is the deliberate creation of useful innocents. I have read lots of columns by conservative columnists including David Frum that have noted this, but you really captured it.

PS I saw you had no answer to any aspect of my arguments. Merely tried to dismiss me with non arguments (very Rush of you though). Even brought up that meaningless buzz-phrase – Mainstream Media. Fox notes that it is the most watched news network — are they the mainstream media. If by mainstream media you mean anyone that reports factual information then perhaps its a reasonable label. But hey, thats why I tend to refer to the CEC as America’s Pravda.

Apparently, RickM feels that if a person claims to be a conservative then he is credible and represents all conservatives. Using that logic, we can judge all democrats by the lack of credibility demonstrated by Obama, Harry Reid and Al Gore. HMMM, Might be on to something there.

Your statement about Frum (writer for the Daily Beast and Newsweek) made it seem like he was not capable of being reasonable about Republicans. I was simply noting that as a conservative he is much more credible in his commentaries on conservatives. Just as a progressive leaning individual is more credible when commenting on their own. So, no your analogy of the “lack of credibility” of certain individuals as Democrats reflecting on all Democrats is of course utter rubbish. Credible progressives who are commenting on Democrat leaning individuals are most credible when commenting on Democrats. Just as Frum, Chris Christie, and even conservative commentators like Bill O’Reilly and Joe Scarborough are when commenting on conservatives. Heck, I listen to Rush a lot and find him to be at his most illuminating when deconstructing the Republicans. Back when President GW Bush was pushing to privatize social security it was Rush who really took the idea apart and made it clear it could never work.

I get it Mike. In the bubble everything you are pushing is “truth” (or at least truthy). Unfortunately, the world of the bubble doesn’t exist.

“Leaving aside the other obvious flaws in this argument (how does this explain marriages where there is clearly no chance of children, etc.),”

So why then do we allow anyone 16 and over to drive when some people 16 and over can’t drive due to disabilities? I hope this question illustrates the absurdity of your objection. The overwhelming majority of heterosexual couples who get married have children. The overwhelming majority of homosexual couples who enter into civil unions/get married do not.

“So why then do we allow anyone 16 and over to drive when some people 16 and over can’t drive due to disabilities?”

We actually don’t allow everyone 16 and over to drive. We do not allow people with certain types of limitations (blindness, type I diabetes in some cases, etc.) to drive. Weirdly enough, we do NOT prevent adults who are able to form intent and are not already married to marry (at least, to an unrelated heterosexual partner, and now, in 11 states, to an unrelated homosexual partners). Doesn’t matter if you can have kids or not — you still get all the benefits. The only limits are the ability to form intent (and therefore enter into a contract) and that you are not already participating in a contract. You then get those benefits. And many of those benefits do not pertain to child-rearing years at all.

As to your assertions about children, your statistics are not quite accurate. Despite the monetary hurdles to having children directly for same-sex couples and the difficulties in many states for same sex couples to adopt the numbers in 2008 according to the US census are as follows:

Not enough data on married same sex couples existed in 2008 to do an accurate count. In any case, LOTS of same sex couples have children. Despite all the hurdles more than 20% do. And those numbers are showing a sharp upwards trend as bigotry is receding. So, we will likely see most of the difference disappear in a generation. So, yes, I think we can safely dismiss any arguments based on vague notions like the ones you assert as patently untrue.

You just proved my point! My driving analogy was to show the ridiculousness of the argument about married heterosexual couples who can’t have children.

As for the statistics you cited, well, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” You just completely misused the census data to make a claim that simply is not true. You assertion is that only ~43% of heterosexual couples (married or not) ever have children. THAT IS NOT WHAT THAT STATISTIC IS ABOUT!!! That statistic is about “Children in the Household” and includes couples of ALL AGES, even older couples whose children are grown and not living in the household! I really cannot see how you could have possibly made a simple mistake here, but still, I will not outright accuse your of blatant dishonesty. I leave it up to you to admit that you either made an absolutely boneheaded error or lied.

Also, the statistics on children in homosexual households undoubtedly includes data from homosexuals who started out in heterosexual marriages/relationships. Without those people, the percentage would be much, much, MUCH lower.

My apologies Jay. I was assuming your argument had more substance and subtlety than it did. Its humorous, not even the church groups that were pushing the ban on homosexual marriage in Minnesota ever tried an argument so obviously flawed as (to paraphrase) marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals because almost all marriages are between people who plan to eventually have kids naturally and homosexuals cannot.

Now, how can we go about measuring how often people marry with the eventual plan to have kids. I am not aware that there is any research on it, it does not appear that the US Census gathers such data. But we can at least measure some other notions that give us a starting point. Various states report statistics about marriages based on the age of the bride/groom. We can look at those. The chance of a woman having a child naturally after the age of 40 is almost 0 (the chance after 35 is fairly small, but lets choose a very conservative starting point). In the state of Texas (a nice red state to use for estimating purposes) in 2010 there were 174,171 marriages, and they have bride age data on all but 16 (data here: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/vstat/vs10/t40.xls‎). Of those 174,155 marriages with age data, 35,070, or 20.1% involved women who were 40 or older. As we are using a large pool of data and 2010 does not seem to be a particularly odd year for marriage I would assert that this 20.1% would serve as a good starting point. 1/5 of marriages in Texas, at the very least, involve couples with no capability of having children. But of course, there’s lots more to be counted in that group. There are people who marry who already have children and have no intention of having further children. There are people who marry who simply never have children. There are marriages involving people who simply cannot have children. So, the 20% number is a gross underestimate.

So, clearly, the notion that marriage is basically restricted to only people who are going to have children is utter rubbish. What’s more, there is an ugly flaw to your reasoning. As I noted in my previous statistics, homosexual couples have children at a significant rate (regardless of how it occurs), and as the bigotry regarding this drops the numbers will only get higher. If having children at a high rate is your only hurdle for allowing marriage, its clear that it has been cleared.

But then, thats a fairly silly hurdle. The churches at least came up with a credible version of the argument (the allegation that heterosexuals are better parents), though that argument is also flawed. But yours is unique.

You know Jay, your position has a natural approach that would allow you to deny homosexuals marriage. You could try to get a law passed that a couple must show that they are *naturally* fertile with each other before getting married. Past menopause? No marriage. Tubes tied (male or female)? Nope. Zero sperm count? Sorry. Lost your testes due to cancer (or injury)? Too bad.

I’ll add to my earlier comment that the Census Bureau statistics also include couples who don’t yet have children and older couples who have either finally married or remarried after having children who have grown up. Therefore, your false use of the statistics is even more absurd. Honestly, if only 43% of couples were interested in raising families, we’d have a serious child shortage in this country!

As for your argument about the percentage of homosexual couples who will start having children growing “as bigotry is receding,” that is patently false. It will not rise much, if at all, because of the simple fact that homosexuals by and large are not interested in raising children.

I never said marriage should be restricted to only people who can and will procreate. That’s YOUR straw man argument and your use of it does not surprise me. When in doubt, make up something easy to attack. No, my point is that the government has a vested interest in promoting marriage between heterosexual couples because those are the unions which are most likely to produce children and children are very, very good for the government for many reasons. There apparently is only vague statistics about how many couples that get married end up starting families, but it’s a pretty safe bet that it’s greater than 70%. Of course the government doesn’t ask people if they are planning on raising children or perform fertility tests on them because it doesn’t have to as the fact remains that most marriages result in child rearing. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not, so what interest does the government have in promoting them? None.

Your new statistics are utterly meaningless as I have already pointed out that you are attacking a straw man argument of your own making. I will point out once again the error in your claim that homosexual couples are having children “at a significant rate.” The Census data that you are basing that claim on does not support that assertion. The data only mentions homosexual households where children are present and it does not give any details about the household situations. As I said, some of these children could be from previous heterosexual unions. It is not unheard of for divorced parents with custody of their children to enter into homosexual relationships. (I know of an example of that in my own family, in fact.)

As far as heterosexual parents being the best for kids, that’s such a fact that it hardly needs culled data to back it up, but the data does still exist. Oh, yes, yes, I know. “The Regnerus study has been disproven.” No, it hasn’t. It’s been attacked by those hostile to its conclusions, but Regnerus was exonerated of any bias or wrongdoing in his study. Indeed, it is the studies that have claimed that there’s no difference between heterosexual and homosexual parents that have been found to be severely, fatally flawed. Much like your arguments based on misuse of statistics, making up statistics, and attacking straw man arguments.

See, here’s the problem Jay. You make sweeping statements about statistics and provide absolutely no backing. Even when evidence is provided that shows your statistics are misleading or wrong you nevertheless go on to claim that somehow you must still be right. You criticize the use of the 43% number. The problem we run in to is that there is no way to compare marriages to determine how likely they are to produce children, as people do not study it (not surprising given the many confounds — plus that marriage in the modern age does not have a purpose of children). The 43% provides a baseline for comparing how many children there are being raised by different types of couples (note that the 43% number applies to both married and unmarried heterosexual couples, so your suggestion that marriage produces children is without basis).

But you still clung to the idea that somehow marriage almost always produces children. So, I dug up indirect evidence to show that in Texas, at least 20% of marriages cannot end in children. And of course, the number is much higher. You know, statistics happen to be my bailiwick. I am completely happy taking apart your numbers if you had any, but you don’t, you just make sweeping statements with NO support. I would also love to point out the many flaws that caused the journal that originally published the Regnerus study to withdraw it as junk science. But so many other major medical organizations have done so with so much more authority. Lets start with the ASA, whose amicus brief to the Supreme Court completely destroys the Regnerus study:

Lets just pull some of the section headings, which capture the gist, from that study:

“SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS IS CLEAR: CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX PARENTS FARE JUST AS WELL AS CHILDREN OF OPPOSITE-SEX PARENTS”

“THE REGNERUS STUDY DOES NOT SUPPORT CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE IMPACT OF BEING RAISED BY SAME-SEX PARENTS”

So, lets see, we have one sociologist, Regnerus, still trying to defend his since debunked study (and the many bigots who are not scientists but want desperately for him to be right), and the main organization in the US representing sociologists saying his study is crap and that his conclusions are wrong. And like a good bubbleite you go with the debunked guy because it supports your conclusion. Now that’s open-mindedness. No bigotry there.

My personal favorite part of your statement is the utterly without basis “homosexuals by and large are not interested in raising children.” You have no evidence to support this. And of course, the Gates study completely contradicts you. It is not surprising you would not know this — you mention the Regnerus study as if it were not hogwash — so you must be completely within the bubble.

BTW, as has been pointed out, the one conclusion the Regnerus study came to that was supported was that stability is good for children regardless of the orientation of their parents (Regnerus could not comment on homosexual parenting as it turned out that he had less than 5 in the study). The stability provided by marriage is very good — which is a wonderful argument for allowing homosexual couples to marry, to provide stability for the hundreds of thousands of children with homosexual parents. Actually, there are some studies that suggest lesbian couples may be slightly better for kids than heterosexual couples, but I digress. Its not like anyone would try to use such evidence to deny couples who would not make as good parents the right to marry.

So the definition of “progressive” politician is “ignoring your constituents to force something on them they don’t want.” I’m thankful that both Sen. Ingebrigtsen and Rep. Franson stood up for the people they represent. To bad other legislators didn’t. Other places that have enacted gay marriage have suffered from serious consequences: damage to the institution of marriage, violations of the freedoms of speech and religion, legal consequences that were not prepared for (e.g. homosexuals divorcing), etc. There are also very disturbing situations like the case of Lisa (a former lesbian who became a Christian) and Isabella Miller in Vermont where a judge gave custody of Isabella to her mother Lisa’s former lesbian partner Janet Jenkins. We will see these things and much, much worse in Minnesota soon.

Historical revisionism and abuse of the English language: more hallmarks of “progressives.” Did the Founding Fathers consider themselves “progressive?” No. The considered themselves the ones who wanted to return government to what it should be and not be used as a tool of a tyrannical king (kind of like what Obama is now doing — e.g. his latest scandal involving the IRS). Do you honestly believe that the modern use of the words “progressive” and “conservative” be applied to that era? If so, then tell me, now that Minnesota has gay marriage, does that mean that you guys are now the “conservatives” because you want to keep the law in place while we are now the “progressives” because we don’t?

In fact they did. They also considered themselves to be liberals. If the conservatives at the time had won the US would not exist and all world history would be different. It was the liberal/progressive minded people that stood up to the conservative form of government. The conservative form of government was the monarchy. That is why I always laugh when the RWNJs start talking about US history and the Founding Fathers. They have the whole thing backwards.

“Countrymen, the long experience of our late miseries, I hope is sufficient to persuade every one to a present correction of himself, and think not that either my pains, nor the [investors’] purses, will ever maintain you in idleness and sloth. I speak not this to you all, for diverse of you I know deserve both honor and reward, better than is yet here to be had: but the greater part must be more industrious, or starve, how ever you have been heretofore tolerated by the authorities of the Council, from that I have often commanded you. You see now that power rests wholly in myself: you must obey this now for a Law, that he that will not work shall not eat (except by sickness he be disabled) for the labors of thirty or forty honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain an hundred and fifty idle loiterers. And though you presume the authority here is but a shadow, and that I dare not touch the lives of any but my own must answer it: the Letters patents shall each week be read to you, whose Contents will tell you the contrary. I would wish you therefore without contempt seek to observe these orders set down, for there are now no more Councilors to protect you, nor curb my endeavors. Therefore he that offends, let him assuredly expect his due punishment.” – John Smith

Clearly Smith was NOT one of the founding fathers of our country, though he is a very important individual in the initial European settlements and a very important British citizen (buried in London with significant honors). He was able to make a go of the Jametown colony when the two earlier attempts failed (most famously the Roanoke failure — which remains a great mystery). The quote you include is an interesting one from the time when the colony appeared to be going under and Smith issued stern instructions (coincidentally, exactly the same instructions that Powhatan and his tribe used) to his fellow British citizens in the settlement. It worked, but the costs were high. 60 of the first 104 died and after another 100 were added another half died with amazing deprivation.

Don’t get me wrong, historic Jamestown is well worth a visit, and the Smithsonian has a really awesome Jamestown exhibit going on in the National Museum of Natural History in DC regarding bones recovered from the Jamestown site (and what they reveal). The exhibit lasts until early 2014. But John Smith could hardly be called anything close to a founding father of our country. And I am not sure how much an approach to make a settlement a paying concern for his sponsoring company should be used as a guiding principle. Remember, part of Smith’s success was that the Powhatan were significantly reduced in number by European disease.

That having been said, if you are trying to suggest that many of the founding fathers were strong believers in what is now called the Puritan (Protestant) Work Ethic, you are correct. But no, Admiral Smith, while an interesting figure (with an intriguing history) is NOT a founder of this nation.

This gay marriage thing is so cool. Is our local Chamber of Commerce taking advantage of this opportunity by encouraging the development of local gay bars, gay nudist colonies, gay resorts and the like? Since the gays are going to be overtaking the state our business community should embrace them and take advantage of the situation. Alexandria should position itself as a gay tourist destination spot. The Alexandria area is full of faithful Christians who follow God’s word by being loving and compassionate folk. I am sure that all will embrace this great new law allowing gays to marry. I saw two adult men openly kissing on Broadway in front of Larson Insurance a few days ago. It was a beautiful thing to see the love on display in our city streets. Silly Republicans … they keep spreading the fear and hate.